By Chithra Purushothaman

US Cuts Security Aid to Pakistan: What Does It Mean?

US-Pakistan bilateral ties hit a new low in 2018 after
US President Donald Trump’s tweet on New Year’s Eve that made Pakistan the center
of attention for all the wrong reasons. This
might not have been a huge surprise for Pakistan, considering the early
warnings given by the US during the release of its South Asia Policy and National Security Strategy in August and December
2017 respectively, both being grim reminders of eroding US confidence in Pakistan.
The United States toughened its stand on
Pakistan due to its growing mistrust of Islamabad’s intent to eradicate terror
outfits like the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network.

The reality is that the US decision to cut its
security aid to Pakistan brings nothing new into
US-Pakistan bilateral dynamics. The US had already
done that previously when it cut the Coalition Support Funds (CSF) amounting to USD 900 million for the financial years 2015 and
2016, as these funds are to be released only after certification that Pakistan
is taking the necessary steps against the Haqqani network. Now, both the CSF and the USD 255
million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) have been suspended. What has changed now is the approach of the US
administration to Pakistan, publicly accusing Islamabad of supporting the terror outfits that are waging a deadly insurgency in Afghan territory and
ruining US efforts in Afghanistan. Clearly, the
US is not winning the war in Afghanistan and is seeking answers for its own failures in the landlocked country. Pakistan being
the most important ally for the US in Afghanistan, at least since 2002, has not
lived up to US expectations, which has irked the Trump administration which is
up for quick results and is known for hasty decision-making. The immediate casualty of this are cuts in
security aid of up to USD 2 billion (exact figures
still unknown), and the Trump administration is up for some concrete results on
the Afghan front.

While many analysts argue that President Trump’s
decision is a hasty one with little logic, the decision
to impose security aid cuts should be considered
as a measured move for three reasons.

First, the US has cut only security aid which is a
small part of the total aid that it gives to Pakistan. It did not cut its development assistance to Pakistan. Understandably,
the US does not want to completely alienate Pakistan from its strategic radar
by cutting down all financial flows. Second, Pakistan’s fast-growing nuclear
capability and arsenal are of concern to the US, considering that their security
has always been a problem. Hence, the US is wary of creating any instability in
Pakistan — either economic or political. Third, with no US strategy in place
for land and air routes to Afghanistan, other than through Pakistani territory,
the US would prefer not to escalate the crisis to the next level. If Pakistan
blocks the movement of supplies for troops through Pakistani territory, it would adversely affect US
interests in Afghanistan, much more than it could afford at this point in time.
Hence, President Trump’s sudden tweet could be
considered as a pressure tactic
that could get its “major non-NATO ally” on its feet.

Pakistan has two options to explore: either choose to maintain its relationship of
convenience with the US by cracking down on any of the terrorist outfits, or
turn to its “all-weather friend” China.

Pakistan, on its part, has categorically rejected all
the allegations made by President Trump. Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi
even went on to say that US aid is insignificant for Pakistan as for the past
five years they have been getting only USD 10 million annually and are unaware of the higher figures quoted all over the
media. However, there was no mention of anything remotely related to blocking
the US from using its air or land routes.
Even though they are involved in a war of
words, both sides have been careful not to escalate it to a level from which there
is no comeback.

How to manipulate aid for strategic gains is something
that aid donors understand very well and
have been doing for a long time. However, the donor-recipient relationship here
is much more complex than one can assume. Aid recipients like Pakistan hold certain
bargaining chips that ensure continuous
flows of aid to their countries. Even when the US is trying to force Pakistan
to mend its ways, Pakistan understands
that the US security aid cut is temporary, and that the US cannot do without
Pakistan in the Afghan war. Hence, expecting any concrete results out of the security
aid sanctions will be unwise. The US’ whole Afghan policy will hollow out
without engaging Pakistan. As long as maintaining strategic ties with Pakistan remains
essential for the US, Islamabad has greater leverage over the US.

Pakistan has two options to explore: either choose to maintain its relationship of
convenience with the US by cracking down on any of the terrorist outfits, or
turn to its “all-weather friend” China. Even
though China has publicly supported Pakistan and
its efforts in eradicating terror outfits, whether China will fill the gap left
by the US is uncertain.

Without a doubt, China
has interests in Afghanistan and would be ready to support Pakistan if need be.
However, whether Beijing will shoulder the huge
economic and security costs involved without expecting any returns from
Pakistan is something the latter might not be sure of. Notwithstanding its economic, military, and strategic ties with
Pakistan, China has been doing strict business with Pakistan, and has itself
been concerned about the security scenario in Pakistan as its USD 50 billion China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor (CPEC) has come under terror threats with many projects
stalled. Yet, if Pakistan convinces
China, US interests would be severely hampered as China is slowly tightening
its grip on South Asia.

The increasing trust-deficit between the US and
Pakistan has narrowed down the scope for cooperation. From where they are
positioned now, striking a middle ground will not
be easy. However, it will not take long
for both the US and Pakistan to realize that
there is more to gain than lose by
cooperating with each other.